The 13th International Conference on Substorms

Editorial Board (February 2021)
Editor-in-Chief
Takeshi Sagiya, Nagoya University, Japan

Vice Editors-in-Chief
Masahito Nosé, Nagoya University, Japan

Aitaro Kato, University of Tokyo, Japan

Editors
Hideo Aochi
Pascal Audet
Kiyoshi Baba
Joseph B.H. Baker
Nanan Balan
Stephan Christoph Buchert
Sonia CalvariPeter Chi
Harold C. Connolly Jr
Phil Cummins
Hao Dong
Guangyu Fu
Hidenori Genda
Aditya Gusman
Tomasz Hadaś
Shin-Chan Han
Stuart Henrys
James Hickey
Hauke Hussmann

Mie Ichihara
Takeo Ito
Hidekatsu Jin
Art Jolly
Shunichi Kamata
Nobuki Kame
Yoko Kebukawa
Kunihiro Keika
Tomokazu Kobayashi
Kostas Konstantinou
Alexey Kuvshinov
Juanjo Ledo
Atsuko Namiki
Yasuhito Narita
Kazunari Nawa
Hiroyo Ohya
Duggirala Pallamraju
Severine Rosat
Akinori Saito

Tatsuhiko Saito
David Shelly
Hisayoshi Shimizu
Hiroko Sugioka
Wataru Suzuki
Youichiro Takada
Sunny Tam
Naoki Uchida
Yanbin Wang
Yih-Min Wu
Chuang Xuan
Takahiro Yamamoto
Yuhji Yamamoto
Tadashi Yamasaki
Tatsuhiro Yokoyama
Kazunori Yoshizawa
Yohei Yukutake
Seiji Zenitani

Hiroo Kanamori
Jun'ichiro Kawaguchi
Takafumi Matsui
Hitoshi Mizutani

Toshitaka Tsuda
Zhongliang Wu
Kiyoshi Yomogida

Advisory Board
Benjamin Fong Chao
Bernard Chouet
Yoshimori Honkura
Toshihiko Iyemori

Journal Scope
Earth, Planets and Space (EPS) is the official journal of Society of Geomagnetism and Earth, Planetary
and Space Sciences, The Seismological Society of Japan, The Volcanological Society of Japan, The
Geodetic Society of Japan, and The Japanese Society for Planetary Sciences.
EPS is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal published under SpringerOpen. It is an international journal
covering scientific articles in the entire field of earth and planetary sciences, particularly geomagnetism,aeronomy, space science, seismology, volcanology, geodesy, and planetary science. EPS also welcomesarticles in new and interdisciplinary subjects, and technical reports on instrumentation and software.
The journal was launched in 1998 and has since published over 3500 articles. All of them are available forfree on SpringerLink:
https://link.springer.com/journal/40623/volumes-and-issues
More information about the journal, its article collections, and the submission process is available on thejournal homepage:https://earth-planets-space.springeropen.com
Submit your next research article to Earth, Planets and Space via:
https://www.editorialmanager.com/epsp
Yours sincerely,
Prof. Takeshi Sagiya
Editor-in-Chief, Earth, Planets and Space
eic@earth-planets-space.org

Earth, Planets and Space(2019) 71:10
LaBelle et al. Earth, Planets and Space
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-019-0990-1

Open Access

PREFACESpecial issue “The 13th International
Conference on Substorms”
James LaBelle1*, Marc Lessard2, Masahito Nosé3 and Joachim Raeder2

compare substorms during CME-generated geomagnetic
storms versus those occurring during High-Speed Stream
type storms, revealing interesting differences in the number and cadence of substorms during each type.
Spencer et al. (2018) use solar wind data from the ACE
satellite together with a low-dimensional energy-conserving state space model for substorm dynamics of thenightside magnetosphere to predict AL index time series
and other substorm indicator parameters. In seven casestudies, the model reproduces substorm events both inapproximate time duration and activity level, when compared with actual AL or SML data.
Liang et al. (2018) examine optical imaging data during twelve substorms, focusing on the spectroscopiclines characteristic of proton precipitation during thelate growth stage feature called the “transitional stage
to substorm onset” in which the electron-excited emissions intensify and beading occurs along the optical arc
form. Surprisingly, in contrast to the electron emissions,the proton lines increase minimally during this transitional stage and only increase strongly afterward. Lianget al. (2018) show that the muted proton aurora effectcannot be completely explained by, for example, spatial
spreading of the proton auroras. It may have important
implications for explaining late growth phase and onset
phenomena such as TSSO.
Antonova et al. (2018) explore the relationship between
substorms and variations in outer radiation belt electrons, both statistically and by consideration of adiabatic acceleration of electrons in the relaxing magnetic
field in the wake of the substorm. They put forth that thesubstorms occurring in the storm recovery phase areof particular importance for affecting trapped particle
populations.
Vorobjev et al. (2018) investigate a large number ofisolated substorms, finding an unexpected relationship between their intensity and the solar wind dynamic

The Thirteenth International Conference on Substorms(ICS-13) was held September 25–29, 2017, in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, USA. The conference featured
64 oral scientific presentations, including 5 one-hourlong Socratic dialogs with broad participation, and27 poster presentations. Approximately 100 scientists
attended, including many students. Following the patternestablished in previous conferences, participants wereinvited to submit papers inspired by the conference to a
special issue of Earth, Planets and Space. The resulting
papers span an impressive range of substorm-related topics as well as a range of techniques including modeling,
ground- and space-based optical imaging, radioscience,satellite plasma measurements, and magnetometry.
Ieda et al. (2018) present an interesting highly timeresolved case study of a substorm onset observed simultaneously with ground-based and satellite-based optical
instruments. The study reveals that brightening followedby polar motion seen in the satellite-based data coincides
with brightening and poleward expansion in the groundbased images but comes a few minutes after the “Akasofu
initial brightening” seen in the ground-based data. The
explanation remains uncertain, but may possibly be
attributed to the limited spatial resolution of the satellitebased data. Potential implications for definition and identification of substorm onsets are discussed in the paper.
Lyons et al. (2018) examine sixty substorms occurring
during eighteen geomagnetic storms, using the wide geographic coverage of the THEMIS all-sky imagers (ASIs).
The data provide strong evidence of onsets triggered byplasma sheet flow bursts appearing as streamers in the
optical aurora data. The data also give an opportunity to*Correspondence: jlabelle@einstein.dartmouth.edu
1
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Dartmouth College, Hanover,
NH, USA
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article© The Author(s) 2019. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license,
and indicate if changes were made.

1

The 13th International Conference on Substorms
LaBelle et al. Earth, Planets and Space(2019) 71:10

Page 2 of 3

The observation places constraints on the source altitudeof the emissions.
These nine papers herald advances in a variety of
aspects of auroral substorms, and they provide the basis
for better understanding of polar substorms and theunderlying ionospheric and magnetospheric processes.

pressure (unexpected because the usual energy coupling
parameters do not depend strongly on dynamic pressure). While interpretation is uncertain, they show evidence that the dynamic pressure is correlated with energy
coupling parameters during the late growth phase of substorms, and they put forth that the enhanced couplingcreates conditions leading to the subsequent substorm
being more intense.
Two papers focus attention on the famous “Saint Patrick’s Day Storm” of 2015. Kozyreva et al. (2018) illustrate
new tools and techniques by applying them to the many
substorm-like disturbances that occurred during thelengthy recovery phase of the Saint Patrick’s Day Storm.
They develop a virtual magnetogram technique similar
to that employed by, for example, the SuperMag facility,
and including consideration of localized geomagnetic
variations dB/dt. The case study shows evidence suggesting differences in locations of the variations versus the
canonical onset location which may have implications forpredicting geomagnetically induced currents.
Suji and Prince (2018) also investigate the Saint Patrick’s Day storm, combining observations and modelingto independently estimate the local Joule heating and theglobal Joule heating during each of five substorms occurring during the storm main and recovery phases. Local
Joule heating is only a small fraction of global Joule heating for the substorms occurring during main phase but
a large fraction of global Joule heating for those during
recovery phase. The authors put forth the possible explanation that during storm main phase, there are several
pathways whereby energy may be deposited into the ionosphere, and hence the proportion of global Joule heating
associated with the substorm during main phase is small,whereas during storm recovery phase, when the system
is no longer being strongly externally driven, piled up
magnetic flux in the tail is redistributed between daysideand nightside via substorms, and hence the proportion of
global Joule heating associated with the recovery phase islarge.
Finally, LaBelle (2018) probes a natural auroral radio
emission, called medium frequency burst (MFB), whichcharacterizes substorm onsets and has potential toserve for timing or location of onsets. The cause of theseemissions has not been established but is believed to berelated to Langmuir wave excitation. MFB occurs primarily at frequencies of several MHz, well above the electron
gyrofrequency, but an outstanding mystery is the natureof occasional occurrences below the gyrofrequency, previously speculated to be whistler mode. LaBelle (2018)presents the first measurements of the polarization ofthese low-frequency MFB emissions, showing them tobe left-polarized and hence LO-mode not whistler mode.

Abbreviations
ACE: advanced composition explorer; AL: amplitude lower; ASI: all-sky imager;
CME: coronal mass ejection; ICS: international conference on substorms; LO:left/ordinary polarization; MFB: medium frequency burst; SML: super mag
lower; THEMIS: time history of events and macroscale interactions during
substorms; TSSO: transitional stage to substorm onset.
Authors’ contributions
All authors of this article served as the guest editors for this special issue. JL
prepared this preface with the agreement of the other authors. All authors
read and approved the final manuscript.
Author details
1
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH,
USA. 2 Department of Physics, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH,
USA. 3 Institute for Space-Earth Environmental Research, Nagoya University,
Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, Japan.
Acknowledgements
The editors of the special section thank the editor in chief and the staff of
EPS for their support and prompt attention to inquiries, the authors for theirscientific contributions and cooperation with the review process, the many
anonymous reviewers for careful reading of the manuscripts and insightful comments, and the participants of ICS-13 for their presentations anddiscussions.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Availability of data and materials
The only data of this preface are the articles comprising this special issue
published in Earth, Planets and Space.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Funding
Financial support for ICS-13 was provided by the U. S. National Science Foundation under Grant AGS-1700546 and by the University of New Hampshire.

Publisher’s NoteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Received: 17 January 2019 Accepted: 17 January 2019

References
Antonova EE, Stepanova MV, Moya PS, Pinto VA, Vovchenko VV, Ovchinnikov
IL, Sotnikov NV (2018) Processes in auroral oval and outer electron
radiation belt. Earth Planets Space 70:127. https://doi.org/10.1186/s4062
3-018-0898-1
Ieda A, Kauristie K, Nishimura Y, Miyashita Y, Frey HU, Juusola L, Whiter D, Nosé
M, Fillingim MO, Honary F, Rogers NC, Miyoshi Y, Miura T, Kawashima T,
Machida S (2018) Simultaneous observation of auroral substorm onset

2Earth, Planets and Space
LaBelle et al. Earth, Planets and Space(2019) 71:10

Page 3 of 3

in Polar satellite global images and ground-based all-sky images. Earth
Planets Space 70:73. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-018-0843-3
Kozyreva OV, Pilipenko VA, Belakhovsky VB, Sakharov YA (2018) Ground geomagnetic field and GIC response to March 17, 2015, storm. Earth Planets
Space 70:157. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-018-0933-2
LaBelle J (2018) Polarization measurements of unusual cases of medium
frequency burst emissions extending below 1.5 MHz. Earth Planets Space70:143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-018-0912-7
Liang J, Donovan E, Gillies D, Spanswick E, Connors M (2018) Proton auroras
during the transitional stage of substorm onset. Earth Planets Space70:126. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-018-0899-0
Lyons LR, Zou Y, Nishimura Y, Gallardo-Lacourt B, Angelopulos V, Donovan
EF (2018) Stormtime substorm onsets: occurrence and flow channel

triggering. Earth Planets Space 70:81. https://doi.org/10.1186/s4062
3-018-0857-x
Spencer E, Vadepu SK, Srinivas P, Patra S, Horton W (2018) The dynamics ofgeomagnetic substorms with the WINDMI model. Earth Planets Space70:118. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-018-0882-9
Suji KJ, Prince PR (2018) Global and local Joule heating during substorms in St.
Patrick’s Day 2015 geomagnetic storm. Earth Planets Space 70:167. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-018-0940-3
Vorobjev VG, Antonova EE, Yagodkina OI (2018) How the intensity of isolated
substorms is controlled by the solar wind parameters. Earth Planets
Space 70:148. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-018-0922-5

3

The 13th International Conference on Substorms

FULL PAPER

Open Access

Simultaneous observation of auroral substorm onset in Polar satellite
global images and ground-based all-sky images
Akimasa Ieda*, Kirsti Kauristie, Yukitoshi Nishimura, Yukinaga Miyashita, Harald U. Frey, Liisa Juusola,
Daniel Whiter, Masahito Nosé, Matthew O. Fillingim, Farideh Honary, Neil C. Rogers,
Yoshizumi Miyoshi, Tsubasa Miura, Takahiro Kawashima and Shinobu Machida
Earth, Planets and Space 2018, 70:73 DOI: 10.1186/s40623-018-0843-3
Received: 23 November 2017, Accepted: 17 April 2018, Published: 4 May 2018

Keywords: Substorm, Auroral breakup, Aurora, Substorm onset, Global

MLAT (deg)MLAT (deg)

hhmm
2120
1999 Dec 07

images, All-sky images

mW/m²

MUO/5577
23.2 MLT

Polar-UVI/LBHL
23.2 MLT

Substorm onset has originally been defined as a longitudinally extended sudden auroral brightening (Akasofu initial brightening:
AIB) followed a few minutes later by an auroral poleward expansion in ground-based all-sky images (ASIs). In contrast, such clearlymarked two-stage development has not been evident in satellite-based global images (GIs). Instead, substorm onsets have been
identified as localized sudden brightenings that expand immediately poleward. To resolve these differences, optical substorm onset
signatures in GIs and ASIs are compared in this study for a substorm that
Poleward expansion“Initial” brightening
occurred on December 7, 1999. For this substorm, the Polar satellite(Akasofu substorm onset)(Auroral breakup)
ultraviolet global imager was operated with a fixed-filter (170 nm) mode,
68 Ground220aenabling a higher time resolution (37 s) than usual to resolve the possible
66
two-stage development. These data were compared with 20-s resolution
120
green-line (557.7 nm) ASIs at Muonio in Finland. The ASIs revealed the AIB at
642124:50 UT and the subsequent poleward expansion at 2127:50 UT, whereas
62
20
the GIs revealed only an onset brightening that started at 2127:49 UT. Thus,
68 Satellite
12b
the onset in the GIs was delayed relative to the AIB and in fact agreed withthe poleward expansion in the ASIs. The fact that the AIB was not evident in66
6
the GIs may be attributed to the limited spatial resolution of GIs for thin
64
auroral arc brightenings. The implications of these results for the definitionof substorm onset are discussed herein.
62
0

Count

Abstract

Unclear

2125

2130
Auroral breakup

2135

Graphical abstract*Corresponding author: Akimasa Ieda, ieda@nagoya-u.jp

FULL PAPER

Open Access

Stormtime substorm onsets: occurrence andflow channel triggering
Larry R. Lyons*, Ying Zou, Yukitoshi Nishimura, Bea Gallardo-Lacourt, Vassilis Angelopulos
and Eric F. Donovan
Earth, Planets and Space 2018, 70:81 DOI: 10.1186/s40623-018-0857-x
Received: 30 January 2018, Accepted: 7 May 2018, Published: 15 May 2018

Abstract
Bright auroral emissions during geomagnetic storms provide a good opportunity for testing the proposal that substorm onset is frequently
triggered by plasma sheet flow bursts that are manifested in the ionosphere as auroral streamers. We have used the broad coverage of theionospheric mapping of the plasma sheet offered by the high-resolution THEMIS all-sky-imagers (ASIs) and chose the main phases of 9 coronalmass ejection (CME) related and 9 high-speed stream (HSS)-related geomagnetic storms, and identified substorm auroral onsets defined asbrightening followed by poleward expansion. We found a detectable streamer heading to near the substorm onset location for all 60 onsets that
we identified and were observed well by the ASIs. This indicates that substorm onsets are very often triggered by the intrusion of plasma withlower entropy than the surrounding plasma to the onset region, with the caveat that the ASIs do not give a direct measure of the intruding
plasma. The majority of the triggering streamers are “tilted streamers,” which extend eastward as their eastern tip tilts equatorward to near thesubstorm onset location. Fourteen of the 60 cases were identified as “Harang streamers,” where
the streamer discernibly turns toward the west poleward of reaching to near the onset latitude,
indicating flow around the Harang reversal. Using the ASI observations, we observed
substantially less substorm onsets for CME storms than for HSS storms, a result in disagreementwith a recent finding of approximately equal substorm occurrences. We suggest that thisdifference is a result of strong non-substorm streamers that give substorm-like signatures inground magnetic field observations but are not substorms based on their auroral signature.
Our results from CME storms with steady, strong southward IMF are not consistent with the~ 2–4 h repetition of substorms that has been suggested for moderate to strong southward
IMF conditions. Instead, our results indicate substantially lower substorm occurrence during
such steady driving conditions. Our results also show the much more frequent occurrence of
substorms during HSS period, which is likely due to the highly fluctuating IMF.

Keywords: Substorms, Storms, Auroral streamers, Substorm triggering, Substorm occurrence*Corresponding author: Larry R. Lyons, larry@atmos.ucla.edu
4Graphical abstract

Earth, Planets and Space

FULL PAPER

Open Access

The dynamics of geomagnetic substorms with
the WINDMI model
Edmund Spencer*, Sai Krishna Vadepu, Pavithra Srinivas, Swadesh Patra and Wendell Horton
Earth, Planets and Space 2018, 70:118 DOI: 10.1186/s40623-018-0882-9
Received: 21 February 2018, Accepted: 25 June 2018, Published: 11 July 2018

Abstract
The global dynamics of substorms are controlled by several key magnetospheric parameters. In this work we obtain
quantitative measures of these parameters from a low-order nonlinear model of the nightside magnetosphere called WINDMI.
The model uses solar wind and IMF measurements from the ACE spacecraft as input into a system of 8 nonlinear ordinary
differential equations. The state variables of the differential equations represent the energy stored in the geomagnetic tail,central plasma sheet, ring current and field-aligned currents. The output from the model is the geomagnetic westward auroralelectrojet (AL) index and the Dst index. Intermediate variables of the model are the plasma sheet pressure, geotail current,
cross-tail electric field, parallel ion velocity and the pressure gradient current. The values of these variables are controlled byphysical parameters of the model, consisting of
spatially averaged quantities that are analogous
to electric circuit elements. We tune the model tore-produce substorm events, comparing model
capability against observations of auroralbrightening and the auroral electrojet indices AL
from WDC Kyoto and SML from SuperMAG. The
model is capable of capturing events within a
10–12-min interval of occurrence, with level ofactivity comparable to the measured indices.

Keywords: WINDMI, Magnetosphere, Substorm

Graphical abstract*Corresponding author: Edmund Spencer, espencer@southalabama.edu

FULL PAPER

Open AccessProton auroras during the transitional stage ofsubstorm onset
Jun Liang*, Eric Donovan, Deborah Gillies, Emma Spanswick and Martin Connors
Earth, Planets and Space 2018, 70:126 DOI: 10.1186/s40623-018-0899-0
Received: 21 March 2018, Accepted: 1 August 2018, Published: 6 August 2018

Abstract
Optical auroral measurements repeatedly reveal the existence of a transitional stage between a quiescent preexisting arc and its significant
auroral expansion in a substorm onset. Such a transitional stage of substorm onset (TSSO) is characterized by a gradual intensification and theemergence of auroral beads, along the preexisting arc. However, existing studies on TSSO are limited to electron auroras which are dominant in
optical luminosity. In this study, we collect 12 substorm events to investigate the proton auroral features during the late growth phase and the
TSSO. Our major results include: (1) we confirm the previous notion that the onset electron auroral arc
is usually located at the poleward “shoulder” of the main proton auroral band. (2) While the electron
auroral arc typically intensifies by a few times or even an order of magnitude during the TSSO, theconcurrent proton aurora at the same location as the electron auroral arc shows much less noticeable
variations. The proton auroral variations averaged over the arc band, as well as that integrated overthe entire latitudinal range, are mostly within 10% of their mean late-growth-phase levels during the
TSSO. Substantial intensifications of proton auroras occur after the poleward expansion of electron
auroras. Even considering the spatial spreading of proton auroras, we estimate that the variation ofion precipitation fluxes on top of the ionosphere would be typically < 30% during the TSSO. The
above observations impose implications and quantitative constraints on the possible mechanisms of
TSSO and substorm onset. We assert that there is no significant ion energization or large-scale
magnetic field reconfiguration during the TSSO. Instead, it is likely that the underlying mechanism of
the TSSO might be certain kind of ky-dominated instability wave mode. The instability wavelength iscomparable to the ion gyroradius, so that the ions are demagnetized, suppressing ion flux variations
with the instability. Enhancing upward electric fields in the auroral acceleration region during the
TSSO may also play a partial role in weakening the ion precipitation flux variation.

Keywords: Auroral substorm, Transition stage of substorm onset, Proton aurora, Electron aurora,
Preexisting auroral arc, Nightside transition region*Corresponding author: Jun Liang, liangj@ucalgary.ca
5Graphical abstract

The 13th International Conference on Substorms

FULL PAPER

Open Access

Processes in auroral oval and outer electron radiation belt
Elizaveta E. Antonova*, Marina V. Stepanova, Pablo S. Moya, Victor A. Pinto, Vadim V. Vovchenko,
Ilya L. Ovchinnikov and Nikita V. Sotnikov
Earth, Planets and Space 2018, 70:127 DOI: 10.1186/s40623-018-0898-1
Received: 11 February 2018, Accepted: 1 August 2018, Published: 8 August 2018

Abstract
We have analyzed the role of auroral processes in the formation of the outer radiation belt, considering that the main part of theauroral oval maps to the outer part of the ring current, instead of the plasma sheet as is commonly postulated. In this approach, theouter ring current is the region where transverse magnetospheric currents close inside the magnetosphere. Specifically, we analyzed
the role of magnetospheric substorms in theappearance of relativistic electrons in theouter radiation belt. We present
experimental evidence that the presence of
substorms during a geomagnetic storm
recovery phase is, in fact, very important for
the appearance of a new radiation belt
during this phase. We discuss the possible
role of adiabatic acceleration of relativistic
electrons during storm recovery phase andshow that this mechanism may accelerate
the relativistic electrons by more than one
order of magnitude.
50

0

3

450
300

SYM-H (nT)

6

5
4
3
2
1
0

5
4
3

5

5

4

Oct-03
18:39

Oct-04
17:19

Oct-05
15:59

450
300

1

450
300

1200

800
400

0

-10

Sep-10
00:00

2

2

600

800
400

0

Oct-02
19:59

3

3

10

Oct-01
21:20

4

4

10

Sep-30
22:40

5

5

10

Sep-30
00:00

1

6

0

-10

2

3

0

0

3

4

Log(flux)L

E = 1.8 MeV

Log(flux)

600|AL| (nT)|AL| (nT)

400

6

750

1200

800

IMF Bz (nT)

|AL| (nT)3

SW Vx (km/s)

600

1200

IMFBz (nT)4750

SW Vx (km/s)

SW Vx (km/s)

750

5
4
3
2
1
0

5

Log(flux)

2

4

-150

L

5

Log(flux)4

E = 2.1 MeV

6

6

Log(flux)

3

0

-50

-100
-200

E = 2.1 MeV

SYM-H (nT)

0

-150
-200

IMF Bz (nT)

L

2

4

Log(flux)45

E = 1.8 MeV

6L

E = 2.1 MeV

E = 1.8 MeV

-200

50

0

-50

-100

L

0

-150

L

SYM-H (nT)

50

-50

-100

Sep-10
21:20

Sep-11
18:40

Sep-12
16:00

Sep-13
13:19

Sep-14
10:40

Sep-15
08:00

0

-10

Sep-2812:00

Sep-2909:59

Sep-30
08:00

Oct-01
06:00

Oct-0203:59

Oct-0302:00

Oct-0400:00

1

Keywords: Magnetospheric storm andsubstorm, Auroral oval,
Acceleration of electrons of theouter electron radiation belt

Graphical abstract*Corresponding author: Elizaveta E. Antonova, elizaveta.antonova@gmail.com

FULL PAPER

Open AccessPolarization measurements of unusual cases of medium
frequency burst emissions extending below 1.5 MHz
J. LaBelle
Earth, Planets and Space 2018, 70:143 DOI: 10.1186/s40623-018-0912-7
Received: 7 March 2018, Accepted: 18 August 2018, Published: 4 September 2018

Abstract

Frequency (kHz)Frequency (kHz)Auroral medium frequency burst (MFB) is a radio emission of natural auroral origin associated with substorm expansion phaseand observable at ground level. The emission usually occurs at frequencies above 1500 kHz, but occasionally it extends to a sharp
lower cutoff frequency at 1300–1500 kHz depending on the observing site, with a frequency gap below the cutoff and sporadic
emission below the gap extending to frequencies as low as 1000 kHz.
These low-frequency MFB components lie below the electron
2500
gyrofrequency and hence could represent either whistler or LO2000
Leftmodes. Recently, using crossed antennas and a two-channel receiverpolarized
1500
at Toolik Lake, Alaska, polarization of these low-frequency MFB
Right1000
components was measured for the first time and found to be leftpolarized
hand. This observation eliminates whistler mode as a possibility and500
requires the low-frequency components be LO-mode in the0
2000
ionosphere, which constrains their source location since it requiresthat the frequency exceeds the L-cutoff frequency. In these occasional
1500
events marked by a cutoff and low-frequency MFB components, the1000
latter probably originate at high altitudes (>800 km) and reach theground through extraordinary low-density polar cap ionosphere.
500

Keywords: Auroral radio emission, Substorm, Substorm onset,

Langmuir wave, Mode conversion radiation, Medium
frequency burst

Corresponding author: J. LaBelle, jlabelle@einstein.dartmouth.edu
6

0

0754

0755

0756

0757

Time (UT) on October 19, 2017

Graphical abstract

0758

Earth, Planets and Space

FULL PAPER

Open Access

How the intensity of isolated substorms is controlled by
the solar wind parameters
Vyacheslav Georgievich Vorobjev*, Elizaveta Evgenievna Antonova
and Oksana Ivanovna Yagodkina
Earth, Planets and Space 2018, 70:148 DOI: 10.1186/s40623-018-0922-5
Received: 5 March 2018, Accepted: 12 September 2018, Published: 19 September 2018

Abstract
Analysis of 163 isolated substorms showed that their intensity quantified as a
maximum absolute value of the AL index increases with an increase in the velocity andnumber density of the solar wind plasma and hence its dynamic pressure. Most of thecoupling functions describing the energy loading to the magnetosphere, e.g., theKan–Lee electric field (EKL) and the Newell factor (dΦ/dt), do not include the dynamic
pressure as an input parameter. Having examined the correlation between thesefunctions and the dynamic pressure, we found that, surprisingly, while almost
uncorrelated for any arbitrary time interval, both EKL and dΦ/dt correlate with the
dynamic pressure within 1 h before the onset of isolated substorms. That is, an increasein the solar wind dynamic pressure is associated with an increase in the solar winddriving before the onset. We assume that the increase in the dynamic pressure as earlyas before substorm growth path creates the conditions inside the magnetosphere that
impede the occurrence of substorms and increase the threshold for the instability
leading to expansion onset, forcing the accumulation of greater amount of energy inthe magnetosphere. This energy is released during substorm expansion, producing amore intense magnetic bay.

Keywords: Isolated substorms, Substorm onset, The AL index, Solar wind plasma,
Solar wind driving

Graphical abstract*Corresponding author: Vyacheslav Georgievich Vorobjev, vorobjev@pgia.ru

FULL PAPER

Open Access

Ground geomagnetic field and GIC response to March 17,
2015, storm
Olga V. Kozyreva, Vyacheslav A. Pilipenko*, Vladimir B. Belakhovsky and Yaroslav A. Sakharov
Earth, Planets and Space 2018, 70:157 DOI: 10.1186/s40623-018-0933-2
Received: 22 March 2018, Accepted: 25 September 2018, Published: 1 October 2018

Abstract
The St. Patrick’s Day geomagnetic storm on March 17, 2015, has been chosen by the
space community for synergetic analysis to build a more comprehensive picture of thestorm’s origin and evolution. This storm had an unusually long (~ 17 h) main phase.
During this period, many substorm-like activations occurred. These activations resulted inbursts of geomagnetically induced currents (GICs) in power lines on the Kola peninsula.
To examine the substorm activations in more detail, we apply various data processing
techniques for the world-wide array of magnetometers: the virtual magnetograms,
magnetic latitude–local time (MLT) snapshots, and magnetic keograms. These techniques
are simple tools that are supplementary to more advanced facilities developed for the
analysis of SuperDARN, IMAGE, and CARISMA arrays. We compare the global spatial
localization and time evolution of the geomagnetic X-component disturbance andmagnetic field variability measured by the Hilbert transform of time derivative dB/dt. The
latitude-MLT mapping of these magnitudes shows that very often a region with highest
magnetic variability does not overlap with a substorm “epicenter” but is shifted to its
poleward or equatorward boundaries. Highest variability of the geomagnetic field, andconsequently intense GICs, are caused by medium-scale fast varying structures. There isno one-to-one correspondence between substorm intensity and GIC magnitude.

Keywords: Geomagnetic storm, Substorm, Geomagnetically induced currents, Virtual
magnetometer

Graphical abstract*Corresponding author: Vyacheslav A. Pilipenko, space.soliton@gmail.com
7

The 13th International Conference on Substorms

FULL PAPER

Open Access

Global and local Joule heating during substorms in
St. Patrick’s Day 2015 geomagnetic storm
K. J. Suji and P. R. Prince*
Earth, Planets and Space 2018, 70:167 DOI: 10.1186/s40623-018-0940-3
Received: 12 February 2018, Accepted: 11 October 2018, Published: 20 October 2018

Abstract
The first super storm of solar cycle 24 occurred on “St. Patrick’s Day” (17 March 2015), with a minimum Dst level of − 223 nT.
Five major substorms in this super storm were selected, with minimum values of local electrojet index (IL) ranging from− 1662 to − 673 nT. The selected substorms are all in the 22:00 MLT–06:00 MLT sector of the auroral oval region showing
associated Pi2s and negative bays in the H-component of magnetograms, derived from the IMAGE magnetometerlongitudinal (Fennoscandia) chain. The solar wind energy input is estimated as time integral of Akasofu’s epsilon parameter,
determined from the SuperMAG magnetometer. The local ionospheric Joule heating (local JH) rate, in the midnight or
post-midnight sectors, is estimated using a modified
form of Ahn’s empirical conversion. The Global
ionospheric Joule heating rate in the northernhemisphere (global JH) is taken from OpenGGCM
model. For the substorm in the main phase of thesuperstorm, the local JH consumes only 9% (8%, if
the IL is replaced by AL index in the empiricalconversion relation) of the global JH. However,
40–86% (39–48%, if the IL is replaced by AL index in
the empirical conversion relation) of global JH isconsumed as local JH for the remaining substorms.

Keywords: Geomagnetic storms, Substorms, Pi2

Fig. 3pulsations, Ionospheric Joule heating*Corresponding author: P. R. Prince , princerprasad@gmail.com

8

Information for Contributors
General1.

Manuscripts should be submitted through the journal’s Editorial Manager system(https://www.editorialmanager.com/epsp/default.aspx).

2.

Only papers not previously published will be accepted, and the emphasis is on theoriginality of concept or observation.

3.

Five varieties of article types are available.
3.1“Full Paper” without word limit.

3.2“Express Letter” has a limit of 5000 words including the main text, figure legends
and table legends. The sum of the number of figures and tables should be lessthan or equal to 5.

3.3“Frontier Letter” can be submitted upon invitation by the Editor-in-Chief.

3.4“Technical Report” describes the technical development of instrument or software.

3.5“Comment” is a substantial re-analysis of a previously published article in thejournal. ”Comment” should not exceed 1000 words.

4.

Authors retain the copyright, and distribution of articles is free under the CC BY license.

Technical
1.

Manuscripts should be written in English with double spacing.

2.

Each manuscript should be organized in the following order: title, authors’ names,
affiliations, abstract, key words, main text, acknowledgement, appendix, references, andsupplementary materials. A graphical abstract image must be uploaded duringsubmission which should provide the reader with a visual description of the topic
covered in the article.

3.

The corresponding author should be clearly indicated.

4.

The abstract is limited to 350 words and should be informative and include principal
findings and conclusions. Please avoid abbreviations.

5.

The main text can have multiple free headings.

6.

High-resolution figures should be provided in the following format; PDF (preferred
format for diagrams), PNG (preferred format for photos or images), EPS ,TIFF, JPEG, BMP.
The graphical abstract should be approximately 920 × 300 pixels and should be
uploaded as a JPEG, PNG or SVG file.

7.

References must follow the Springer Basic style.

Correspondence
If you have any questions, please contact info@springeropen.com.

© EPS Steering Committee 2021 All rights reserved.
A Grant-in-Aid for Publication of Scientific Research Results (19HP1001) fromJapan Society for the Promotion of Science is used for printing.

Contents
Special issue “The 13th International Conference on Substorms”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . James LaBelle, Marc Lessard, Masahito Nosé and Joachim Raeder
Simultaneous observation of auroral substorm onset in Polar satellite global images and ground-based all-sky images. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akimasa Ieda, Kirsti Kauristie, Yukitoshi Nishimura, Yukinaga Miyashita, Harald U. Frey,
Liisa Juusola, Daniel Whiter, Masahito Nosé, Matthew O. Fillingim, Farideh Honary, Neil C. Rogers,
Yoshizumi Miyoshi, Tsubasa Miura, Takahiro Kawashima and Shinobu Machida

Stormtime substorm onsets: occurrence and flow channel triggering. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Larry R. Lyons, Ying Zou, Yukitoshi Nishimura, Bea Gallardo-Lacourt, Vassilis Angelopulos and Eric F. Donovan
The dynamics of geomagnetic substorms with the WINDMI model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Edmund Spencer, Sai Krishna Vadepu, Pavithra Srinivas, Swadesh Patra and Wendell Horton
Proton auroras during the transitional stage of substorm onset. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jun Liang, Eric Donovan, Deborah Gillies, Emma Spanswick and Martin Connors
Processes in auroral oval and outer electron radiation belt
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elizaveta E. Antonova, Marina V. Stepanova, Pablo S. Moya, Victor A. Pinto,
Vadim V. Vovchenko, Ilya L. Ovchinnikov and Nikita V. Sotnikov

Polarization measurements of unusual cases of medium frequency burst emissions extending below 1.5 MHz. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J. LaBelleHow the intensity of isolated substorms is controlled by the solar wind parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vyacheslav Georgievich Vorobjev, Elizaveta Evgenievna Antonova and Oksana Ivanovna Yagodkina
Ground geomagnetic field and GIC response to March 17, 2015, storm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Olga V. Kozyreva, Vyacheslav A. Pilipenko, Vladimir B. Belakhovsky and Yaroslav A. Sakharov
Global and local Joule heating during substorms in St. Patrick’s Day 2015 geomagnetic storm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K. J. Suji and P. R. Prince

1

4
4
5
5

6
6
7
7
8

Cover image: Lyons, L. R. et al., Earth, Planets and Space 2018, 70:81 DOI: 10.1186/s40623-018-0857-x